Which income groups benefitted the most from Trump's 2nd administration?

1. Middle and working classes: measurable early gains, emphasized by Republican analyses

Supporters point to IRS and Treasury analyses showing average percentage reductions in tax liabilities that were largest for many filers in the low‑to‑middle AGI bands in the first full year after TCJA, with reported average cuts of 16–26 percent for filers with AGI from $15,000 to $50,000 in 2018 and committee statements stressing relief for families earning around $75,000 ^{[1] [2]}. Congressional Republican messaging and fact sheets argued that median household income rose and that poverty and unemployment improved during the period following the law, framing the working class as major beneficiaries ^{[2] [6]}.

2. High earners and corporations: larger dollar cuts and structural advantages

Independent tax‑policy groups and investigative reports document that the top percentiles received much larger average dollar reductions over time: the Tax Policy Center estimated the top 1 percent would see an average tax cut on the order of tens of thousands of dollars by 2025, and ITEP modeling showed proposals and subsequent bills that disproportionately favor the wealthy, with the richest receiving far larger net cuts than the bottom 60 percent in later years ^{[3] [7] [8]}. Corporations also reaped substantial benefits from TCJA provisions — for example, 15 large multinationals reported more than $1 billion each from specific deductions since 2018 — signaling that corporate winners were concentrated and large in magnitude ^[4].

3. The nuance: percent‑vs‑dollar framing and time horizons change who “benefits most”

Analysts diverge because some emphasize percentage change in tax burden (which can favor lower‑income filers who paid little tax initially) while others focus on absolute dollar gains or long‑run distributional outcomes that favor the wealthy; the same law can therefore be read as pro‑middle in percentage terms for 2018 yet highly regressive in dollar and longer‑term estimates ^{[1] [3] [9]}. Additionally, changes that temporarily expanded credits or the standard deduction helped many low and middle earners, but many income tax rate cuts were scheduled to expire and longer‑term extensions or additional Trump proposals tended to concentrate benefits to higher‑income groups ^{[10] [7]}.

4. Offsetting policies: tariffs and trade measures reduced household gains

Tariffs enacted during the Trump years functioned like a consumer tax and, by conservative revenue estimates, increased costs to U.S. households by roughly $200–$300 a year on average in direct collections, with broader economic costs that could erode income and employment and thus offset some tax‑cut benefits for households ^{[5] [11]}. Reporting underscores that tariffs generated revenue but did not come close to paying for tax cuts and in practice raised consumer prices and reduced real income for many families ^{[5] [11]}.

5. Bottom line and limits of available reporting

Taken together, the most robust conclusion across the sources is that different metrics tell different stories: Republican and IRS‑cited analyses highlight meaningful percentage gains for many low‑ and middle‑income filers in early years ^{[1] [2]}, while independent researchers and think tanks show that high‑income households and corporations captured the lion’s share of absolute and long‑run benefits ^{[3] [4] [8]}; trade policies like tariffs worked in the opposite direction by imposing costs on average households ^[5]. This account is constrained to the cited reporting; where claims extend beyond those data — for instance, precise net lifetime gains by quintile under every legislative permutation of the second Trump term — the sources offered modeling or partisan summaries rather than a single definitive empirical ledger ^{[7] [8]}.